With reference to books, when did popularity ever become a complete measure of quality? Of the people who say it is, I ask this “Who died and made you king?”
Moving a couple of steps to the side from that thought – why do we judge each other by the books we’ve read or failed to read? It’s all too often that one hears some thing like, “You seriously can’t call yourself a reader if you haven’t read Tolstoy/Shakespeare/Macnife!” Oh, really? Is he not stupid who does not realize there have been so many great books written over the ages that it is entirely possible for different people to have read any number of great books without ever reading what the others in question have read? Granted, some great books are so widely read in a certain age that it may come as a surprise that one with a taste for books should have not read such a book. But to judge them based on that, that’s arrogant and stupid.
Have you ever felt like a sheep in a wolf’s clothing hiding among wolves? I have. And then for a while, I felt as though I was really the wolf hiding among the sheep. Strangely, I now feel like neither sheep nor wolf... I just don't know any more!
It’s 10:55pm and the temperature in my bedroom is 68.0 degrees Fahrenheit. I am sure that the probability of this statement being interpreted by ‘scholars’ who will ‘unlock its inner meaning’ is greater than zero. I wonder how much of what we ‘know’ is the product of such ‘insight’.
Continuing in the same vein: I am told that the fourth word of every seventh line from the odd-numbered pages of all seven Harry Potter books taken together spell out a secret message inviting the children of the world to unite under the banner of the duck-billed platypus and revolt against capitalism and chocolate teddy bears.
Often, genius is peppered with a dash of madness. However, madness alone is all too often mistaken for genius.
Could there be a better role model for me than a vision of the man I seek to be? Not only is such a role model open to constant evolution, but also it is impossible to be let down by him.
Is it not stupid to act solely to avoid future regret?
Moving a couple of steps to the side from that thought – why do we judge each other by the books we’ve read or failed to read? It’s all too often that one hears some thing like, “You seriously can’t call yourself a reader if you haven’t read Tolstoy/Shakespeare/Macnife!” Oh, really? Is he not stupid who does not realize there have been so many great books written over the ages that it is entirely possible for different people to have read any number of great books without ever reading what the others in question have read? Granted, some great books are so widely read in a certain age that it may come as a surprise that one with a taste for books should have not read such a book. But to judge them based on that, that’s arrogant and stupid.
Have you ever felt like a sheep in a wolf’s clothing hiding among wolves? I have. And then for a while, I felt as though I was really the wolf hiding among the sheep. Strangely, I now feel like neither sheep nor wolf... I just don't know any more!
It’s 10:55pm and the temperature in my bedroom is 68.0 degrees Fahrenheit. I am sure that the probability of this statement being interpreted by ‘scholars’ who will ‘unlock its inner meaning’ is greater than zero. I wonder how much of what we ‘know’ is the product of such ‘insight’.
Continuing in the same vein: I am told that the fourth word of every seventh line from the odd-numbered pages of all seven Harry Potter books taken together spell out a secret message inviting the children of the world to unite under the banner of the duck-billed platypus and revolt against capitalism and chocolate teddy bears.
Often, genius is peppered with a dash of madness. However, madness alone is all too often mistaken for genius.
Could there be a better role model for me than a vision of the man I seek to be? Not only is such a role model open to constant evolution, but also it is impossible to be let down by him.
Is it not stupid to act solely to avoid future regret?
__________________________________________________
Here’s a conversation that happened inside my head between me and a hypothetical ‘true believer’ (let’s call him B):
Me: So you say there’s a god who is omniscient, omnipotent and omnipresent and that he made the universe?
B: Yes, of course!
Me: Then how do you explain the fact that I’m an asshole who won’t accept that? If god made me, wouldn’t he have made me aware of that fact?
B: No, He gave us all free will.
Me: Really? Why would he do that? To see what we’d do with it? But being omniscient, he should already know the answer to that – thus obviating the need for such an experiment.
Oh wait, he’s not only watching me, but will judge me after I die, right? If he already knew where I was going to end up and still let me do it, I’d say he has one hell of a twisted sense of humor.
And if you amend your definition and say he’s not omniscient, I ask you then why would he make you and me then? What is his purpose for creating the universe? To watch and learn? Wait, now he’s a scientist? But he wants you to forget about the science and have faith?
B: You’re evil!
Me: Sounds to me like you don’t have a real answer. My job is done then. Time to wake up and get to work – happens to be science by the way. I’m out of here, before you decide to kill me.
B: Good! And, don’t come back!
Here’s a conversation that happened inside my head between me and a hypothetical ‘true believer’ (let’s call him B):
Me: So you say there’s a god who is omniscient, omnipotent and omnipresent and that he made the universe?
B: Yes, of course!
Me: Then how do you explain the fact that I’m an asshole who won’t accept that? If god made me, wouldn’t he have made me aware of that fact?
B: No, He gave us all free will.
Me: Really? Why would he do that? To see what we’d do with it? But being omniscient, he should already know the answer to that – thus obviating the need for such an experiment.
Oh wait, he’s not only watching me, but will judge me after I die, right? If he already knew where I was going to end up and still let me do it, I’d say he has one hell of a twisted sense of humor.
And if you amend your definition and say he’s not omniscient, I ask you then why would he make you and me then? What is his purpose for creating the universe? To watch and learn? Wait, now he’s a scientist? But he wants you to forget about the science and have faith?
B: You’re evil!
Me: Sounds to me like you don’t have a real answer. My job is done then. Time to wake up and get to work – happens to be science by the way. I’m out of here, before you decide to kill me.
B: Good! And, don’t come back!
__________________________________________________
"Let me give just one example of how the argument goes. By adding up all the begets in the Book of Genesis you can get the age of the Earth. It turns out to be about six thousand years old—A begat B, B begat C, C begat D. A's lifetime is stated, B's, C's and so on. Then you get up to historical times. Add it all up: 4004 B.C. according to Archbishop Usher. Now, if that is the case, then an interesting question arises. How is it that there are astronomical objects more than 6000 light-years away? It takes light a year to travel a light-year, so if we see an object that is a million light-years away or two million light-years away, we are seeing it as it was one or two million years ago in the past. If the entire universe is only 6,000 years old, what must we deduce from this? I think the only possible conclusion is that 6,000 years ago God made all the photons of light coming to the Earth in a coherent format so as to deceive astronomers into thinking there are such things as galaxies, that the universe is vast and old.
"Since most of the matter and energy in the universe is in external galaxies farther away than a million light-years, God must have created most of the matter and energy in the universe to deceive human beings. That is such a malevolent theology as well as such an arrogant pretension that I cannot believe anyone, no matter how devoted to the literal interpretation of this or that religious book, could seriously consider it. " - Carl Sagan
__________________________________________________
PS. If, after reading this post, even one person reaches for a paper, a pen and the Harry Potter books, my job on this planet is done and I can go home!
__________________________________________________
2 comments:
i'm reminded always about what rushdie said when i hear atheists talk incessantly about god, at times with more passion than the "believers" themselves. i'm sure u'll be distraught to know rushdie got this spot on when he said that atheists are obsessed about god.
I'm not distraught. As with any idea, there are those who think it makes sense and those who have absolute faith in it.
I consider myself to be the former - I can accept any idea if it is presented with clear scientific evidence. In the absensce of any clear evidence to indicate one way or the other, one assumes that the null hypothesis is likely true.
Unfortunately, there are those who are 'excessively passionate about rationalism' - these are the ones who are obsessed with rejecting that which they reject and as a consequence with the very thing they reject. These are the ones who end up becoming anti-theists, telling people their beliefs are wrong - plunging into the very pit they are trying to climb out of.
I've said this before and I say it again - nobody can be THAT sure. To think otherwise would make one delusional, arrogant and foolish.
Therefore I respect the idea of "to each his own" and simply state here ideas that I hold on the subject.
Post a Comment